Donald Trump is discovering just how dangerous an adversary James Comey can be.

A person doesn't rise as high as Mr Comey did in the federal government without learning how to cover his, er, posterior.

With this latest bombshell from the New York Times
it's clear that the former FBI director, who was unceremoniously sacked
by the president, is poised to enjoy the last laugh. Thanks to his
propensity for memo-writing, he may have constructed an arsenal capable
of mortally wounding the Trump presidency.

At the moment the White House is denying Mr
Comey's reported characterisation of the conversation the two men had
shortly after the president fired Michael Flynn. In a "he-said, he-said"
situation, however, the man who wrote contemporaneous documents - memos
plural - will have the upper hand.

Add that Mr Comey has a reputation for
independence, and the face-off looks even more ominous for the
president. As deputy attorney general, Mr Comey stood up to the Bush
administration during a showdown over the legality of a government
surveillance programme. He also withstood withering criticism from
Democrats over his handling of the Hillary Clinton email server
investigation last year.

If he swears to a congressional committee that
the president put undue pressure on him to end an ongoing Flynn
investigation, his word will pack a punch.

The "I" word - impeachment - has already been broached
by politicians as moderate as independent Senator Angus King of Maine.
If this were a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, articles
of impeachment would likely be in the drafting process.

Republicans still call the
shots in Congress, however, and it's a significant leap to get them to
abandon the Trump presidency and any hope of advancing their agenda for
the foreseeable future. But some, like Senator John McCain - who said
this has become a scandal of "Watergate size and scale" - are clearly
wavering.

The former Republican presidential nominee is a
bit of a wild card, of course. For the rank-and-file to turn on the
president will require them to admit their complicity in a failed
presidency.

They rallied behind Trump at the Republican
National Convention. They looked past his feud with a Gold Star family
and his disparaging attacks on Alicia Machado, the former beauty queen.
They bit their tongues after the Access Hollywood video. They may have
supported other candidates during the Republican primary, but they
carried Mr Trump's water through the general election. Now the well is
running dry.

Donald Trump may yet survive these
revelations. Mr Comey's memos could turn out to be paper tigers, with
teeth not nearly as sharp as Tuesday's sneak preview indicated. He
could, under oath, soft-pedal his conclusions. Republicans might decide
it's better to stick with the president than run for the exits.

At the very least, however, it's becoming
clear that Teflon Don is no longer untouchable. His future is no longer
clear. A storm is brewing, and it's going to get worse for their party
before it gets better.

And this from earlier - before the Comey memo news emerged...

The Trump White House has now settled on its
defence of the president's meeting with the Russian delegation, in which
he reportedly revealed classified information to his guests.

In a series of tweets on Tuesday morning the
president framed any disclosure of intelligence information as a
calculated move to advance US national security priorities.

This was always going to be the most effective
response, as the president has broad powers to declassify whatever he
deems necessary. As the old Richard Nixon line goes: "When the president
does it, that means it is not illegal".

The president's explanation is not absolution,
however. A wave of the hand on Twitter isn't going to make this story
go away any time soon. Here are six reasons why.

High crimes and misdemeanours

Let's get the impeachment question out of the
way first. Shortly after the Washington Post story detailing the
allegations broke, there were cries of "treason" from Mr Trump's more
vociferous critics and calls for immediate removal from office.

The charge that Mr Trump, through
ignorance or boastfulness, casually disclosed highly classified
intelligence for no reason may not be a criminal offence, but that
doesn't mean it wouldn't create a political controversy that could, in a
worst-case scenario for the president, end in his impeachment.

The process for impeachment for "high crimes
and misdemeanours" as outlined in the US constitution is a political
act. A simple majority of the House of Representatives can impeach,
initiating a trial in the Senate and a two-thirds vote necessarily for
removal.

As the writers of Lawfare Blog
point out, Mr Trump's opponents could accuse him of violations of his
oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend" the US Constitution - a
catch-all category cited in the three previous times a president has
been seriously threatened with impeachment.

Just because it's possible, however, doesn't
mean it's likely. And again, it has nothing to do with the law and
everything to do with politics - and how the story plays out from here.

The Russian factor

Like Indiana Jones looking at a chamber full
of snakes, many in the Trump White House must be muttering to
themselves: "Russians. Why did it have to be the Russians?"

Allegations of cosier-than-desired relations
with the US geopolitical adversary have bedevilled Mr Trump since the
early days of his presidential campaign.

He's been questioned about the praise
he's lavished on President Vladimir Putin, some of his aides are caught
up in the ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the US 2016
election, his attorney general was forced to recuse himself because of
an undisclosed meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and his
first national security adviser was fired for obfuscating about his
Russia ties (and is one of the people under FBI investigation to boot).

All of this was hanging in the air as Mr Trump
met with Mr Kislyak and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov last
week, just hours after he fired James Comey, the FBI director overseeing
the Russia investigation. US press was barred from attending, and the
only photos that were released came from the Russian state-run news
service.

It was never going to be a good look. Now, in light of the Washington Post's revelations, it's a terrible one.

Mr Trump's tweets explained that he was
"sharing" information with the Russian officials in order to foster
co-operation on important global issues like the fight against the
so-called Islamic State. As Mr Trump points out, he has the "absolute
right" to do so.

The fact that it's the Russians involved, however, means the story will pack that much more powerful a punch.

Sceptical allies

Back in January Yedioth Ahronoth reported
that Israeli intelligence officials were concerned about sharing
sensitive information with the Trump administration because of "fears of
a leakage" to Russia.

Yeah, about that...

According to the Washington Post
report, Mr Trump may have disclosed information provided to the US by a
"key ally" that has "access to the inner workings of the Islamic State".
According to multiple news reports that ally was none other than Israel.

That fits in with the Post's original story,
which did not identify the ally but said "it has previously voiced
frustration with Washington's inability to safeguard sensitive
information related to Iraq and Syria". One US official said it was
potentially a "blow" to the US relationship with that ally.

Israel has declined to confirm the story and
has re-emphasised its security arrangements with the US, but the damage
may be done. If key US allies become reluctant to share intelligence
data with the US, that would be a significant blow to the nation's
national security - even if the details of this particular story are
never fully established.

Off the record, one Israeli intelligence official told Buzzfeed News that the story is "our worst fears confirmed".

Throw in last week's Trump tweet implying that
he - or someone - may have "tapes" of conversations made in the White
House, and the result may be a chilling effect on US foreign relations
across the board.

A leaky ship of state

This latest controversy
should also be viewed in the context of what has become a simmering feud
between the president and members of the intelligence community.

Shortly after he tweeted out that two-part
explanation of his White House meeting with the Russians, Mr Trump sent
another message on a familiar theme - leaks.

"I have been asking Director Comey and others, from the beginning of my administration, to find the LEAKERS in the intelligence community..."

Back in January then-President-elect Trump sent a tweet comparing leaky intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany.

The president is clearly angered by what he
views as a litany of embarrassing disclosures -about phone calls with
leaders of Australia and Mexico, conversations his national security
adviser had with the Russian ambassador and salacious details from a
Trump-Russia dossier circulated among intelligence officials.

The president has threatened massive
re-organisation of the US intelligence bureaucracy and an aggressive
investigation into the source of the leaks - and it appears members of
that community are striking back.

"We could do with a little less drama from the
White House on a lot of things," he told Bloomberg Television, "so we
can focus on our agenda, which is deregulation, tax reform and repealing
and replacing Obamacare."

A few of the Republican usual suspects who have been more outspoken in their criticism are continuing on that tack.

Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted that the White House should share "details of the president's meeting" with Congress.

Once again Senator John McCain of Arizona found something the president did "deeply disturbing".

Barring further revelations, however, the
president has constructed a defence around which Republicans can rally.
While members of Mr Trump's party may grouse about the ongoing
administration fiascos, previous complaints have been followed by
inaction. Until there is evidence to the contrary, this time looks to be
no different.

The trust gap

Last week reporters raged over the fact that
White House officials, from Vice-President Mike Pence on down, put
forward an explanation regarding why the president had fired FBI
Director James Comey that was completely undercut within moments of Mr
Trump opening his mouth in a sit-down interview on Thursday with NBC
News.

The president would later tweet that because he is a "very active president" his press team can't be relied upon to convey his positions with "perfect accuracy".

"Why were so many people giving
answers that just weren't correct?" Jonathan Karl asked Deputy Press
Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. "Were you guys in the dark?"

Needless to say reporters this week took the
early White House spin that Mr Trump only discussed "common threats"
with the Russians, per Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell,
with more than a grain of salt. It appears their scepticism was at least
partially validated when, on Tuesday morning, Mr Trump said he had
shared "facts pertaining to terrorism" with Russia.

Presidents and the media typically have an
adversarial relationship, but this White House is rapidly burning
through any residual goodwill it may have had.

Given that Mr Trump and his team often refer
to the press as the "opposition party", however, they may not lose much
sleep over this development.

How dangerous is 'Comey memo' for Trump?
Reviewed by Bizpodia
on
23:02
Rating: 5